Quote Originally Posted by Drakonid View Post
Speaking of Marx, doesn't he say tat society changes man and it's changed by it? That would mean that even though short term anarchy is unviable, on the long run men would change in a way in which anarchy doesn't just mean utter chaos.
As for my personal opinion, anarchy is just silly, but that's most likely because I was raised in a society in which anarchy is frowned upon. Take Somalia as an example.
Marx doesn't think anarchy works he doesn't even have it in his sociocultural evolution. You start at early communism. Marx says that man is industrious and changes as he develops things. We invent possession and that changes us because we want things we don't need. Society and people change in result of the improvements in the mode of production.
Your initial negative reaction is societal, your analysis there after isn't. Its a futile system. It starts great, falls apart, and then leads to government or inhalation. Those are the only logical progressions. If peace occurs during anarchy you either have people dedicated to is following personal rules that are the same and are avoiding their urges based on a mutual understanding that if they give into them anarchy becomes hell and thus they are instituting a social contract aka government. If one of them breaches that then some will band together and kill him or he will go unpunished and everything falls apart. The reason we make social contracts, the reason for society is because we are social creates and make agreements to further our interests. It comes on way or the other. Either one person or a group benefits. Rousseau most accurately points out the lies we all bought and explains why everyone in America call themselves Middleclass.
Hegel starts with anarchy I think.
Fukuyama thinks we start at anarchy and end at liberal democracy.